Some fundamentalist low-lives never stop trying to sabotage women's access to abortion

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
martin dufresne
Some fundamentalist low-lives never stop trying to sabotage women's access to abortion

On her blog today, Antonia Zerbisias discusses, in an item called "State-utory Rape", recent U.S. state laws that go the extra mile to force doctors' hand in trying to guilt women away from access to abortion. (Caution, this will get your blood boiling big time and may have you cancel vacation plans South of the border.)

From a New York Times report "Abortion Law Backers Vow Oklahoma Appeal": (...)In recent years, several states have passed laws requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion and at least three - Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi - require doctors to offer the woman the chance to see the image.

But Oklahoma's Legislature went further. The law would have required the doctor or technician to set up the ultrasound monitor where the woman could see it and then talk her through the procedure, describing the heart, limbs and internal organs.

The woman would be allowed to "avert her eyes," the law said.

Zerbisias comments: "Nice that you don't have to watch your own rape by medical instrument on TV."

In early stages of pregnancy, when the fetus is tiny, the law would have required the ultrasound to be done vaginally to get a clear image, providers said. No exceptions were made for rape and incest victims.

"Before that mother goes through the procedure, we believe it is positive public policy to give her as much information as possible about that baby," the bill's sponsor, Senator Todd Lamb, a Republican from Edmond, said. "She might just change her mind and, who knows, that baby could be a future Nobel Prize winner."(...)

The law never went into effect because of the legal challenge.

Beyond mandating ultrasounds, the law would have allowed doctors to refuse to take part in an abortion for religious reasons, required signs in clinics saying abortions cannot be coerced and prohibited "wrongful-life lawsuits," in which a plaintiff argues that a disabled child would have been better off not being born. It also put restrictions on the morning-after pill."



Also, scroll down to her take-no-prisoners discussion of an infamous recent judicial decision that let a B.C. rohypnol rapist off the hook for having merely committed a "crime of commodity". Here is looking at you, Fernando Manuel Alves!



martin dufresne

Oops, Zerbisias' blog is at

remind remind's picture

Another good rant by Antonia.

Thanks martin for da link, and Antonia for the Broadside.

G. Muffin

Could anybody tell me where I could find the actual wording of the draft law? I've looked at a few related articles but seen no links to it.

I'm kind of intrigued by this statement: 'The woman would be allowed to "avert her eyes," the law said.'

I'd love to see how that was spelled out.  How exactly could you prevent her from averting her eyes?

martin dufresne

The lawsuit against the Oklahama law is summarized here and the Oklahoma legislation itself appears here. Section 12 C) (page 13) reads:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images."

remind remind's picture

Thiswhole medical instrument rape has been troubling me all day.

Fuckin ass hat men, and religious whacks.

G. Muffin

Thanks, Martin. 

And, Remind, I've been thinking a lot about it, too.  I guess this is a battle that'll never really be won in the sense of case closed, we don't have to worry about it anymore. 

Agent 204 Agent 204's picture

Also from Oklahoma, here's something even worse:

On Nov. 1, a law in Oklahoma will go into effect that will collect personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and post them on a public website. Implementing the measure will "cost $281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year." Here are the first eight questions that women will have to reveal:

1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Induced Abortions

Although the questionnaire does not ask for name, address, or "any information specifically identifying the patient," as Feminists for Choice points out, these eight questions could easily be used to identify a woman in a small community.

From Think Progress, via jblaque.


Has anyone here had a vaginal ultrasound before?

I had my very first one this week, because I've been having some pains in my stomach and my doctor just wanted me to get them checked out.  I'm almost 37 years old, had a baby almost 11 years ago, and had my first vaginal ultrasound this week.

During my pregnancy, I had to have four ultrasounds - no major complications or anything, just that it was hard to figure out the gestational age due to irregular periods, which messed up a couple of the tests early on, so I had a couple of ultrasounds then, and then near the end of the pregnancy I had a couple more because I was overdue.

Not once during my pregnancy did I have a vaginal ultrasound.  Not once.

So anyhow, this week I had a vaginal ultrasound.  It took longer than a pap test, although it wasn't as painful as the scraping they do for pap tests.  But it took longer.  And I was surprised at how much poking and prodding they do. 

They move the wand around, forward and back, prodding this place and that place in order to get good images.

Let me tell you what they don't do.

First of all, they don't set the screen up so you can see it.  They set it up so THEY can see it - they're sitting facing you and putting the wand inside you, so it's not like they can sit beside you and look in the same direction as you to see the screen.

Secondly, they are generally trying to get it done as quickly as possible in order to minimize the discomfort, so they don't spend time saying, "Oh look, that's your ovary!  And there's your other one!  Oh, and see that?  That's your bladder!  Isn't that neat?"

Now, after she'd taken the pictures and the wand was out and she was tidying up, I asked her, out of curiosity if I could see the images.  (I'm weird that way - I also wanted to see the placenta after I gave birth!)  She shrugged and said, "Sure."  She showed them to me.  They meant nothing to me and she offered no explanation because she was cleaning up the instruments.  So I asked her what I was looking at, and then she told me quickly that this picture was the left ovary, this one was the right ovary, etc.

The other thing they don't do is have conversations with you about what they might see in there, because that's up to the doctors to interpret the results and communicate diagnoses to the patient.

I'm describing all this (probably TMI, sorry!) because this is all such BULLSHIT.  I found the vaginal ultrasound uncomfortable and invasive, but at least I was a willing participant.  I can't imagine being forced to submit to that.  And then being forced to submit to a much longer examination because they have to take the time to tell me all that stuff while the wand is inside me.

Furthermore, I can't imagine that this would be compatible with any medical ethical guidelines and standards of practice that licensed medical professionals must follow.  I certainly hope that radiologists and doctors will be raising holy hell over this, and possibly even refusing to follow such laws, on the grounds that they violate professional standards and that they could lose their licenses to practice for forcing women to undergo invasive shit like this for no medical reason whatsoever.



Good points Michelle.  I had to have a vaginal ultrasound not too long ago.  It sucked.  It is uncomfortable with the technician poking around up there and pushing on various parts of you to get better images etc.  But you're right - the woman doing mine didn't show me the screen or describe anything on it.   Our communication was limited to "breathe normally", "hold this here", "try to relax".  


It was not a pleasant experience (to put it mildly).  I had to have mine to make sure everything was working properly.  If I was pregnant and wanted an abortion, I would be mighty pissed to have to go through that too.  The legislature should not be in the habit of attempting to guilt or shame a woman against having an abortion.  Gah!

remind remind's picture

Thanks for sharing Michelle and Summer, it certainly gives those of us who have not had a vaginal ultra sound insight into the dynamics at play here.

But really I want to know why are not women in Oklahoma freaking about about the proposed law that will make medical rape legal?

martin dufresne

Do you know they aren't? The MSM aren't keen on giving a voice to grassroot women. Maybe look at NARAL's website?

P.S.: Strange that the OP's date is now today when I posted this in August.



Oh, I just changed "low-life" to "low-lives" in your title this morning, martin.  Which changes the date to the day you edit the opening post. :)


BTW, I had to sign a consent form before they would do the vaginal ultrasound on me.  I don't think I've signed consent forms before for any tests, even when giving blood or having ECGs done, or regular surface-of-the-stomach ultrasounds.  I thought, wow, that's overkill.

The consent form outlined exactly what they would do (put a wand with a plastic disposable sheath inside you, move it around, and at any time you can ask them to stop and they will stop immediately).

Now, why do you suppose they go to so much trouble to get consent forms signed for this test and not any other?  Darn right - because it's really invasive, and they know that women could find it upsetting, and they want women to know that they can at any time ask them to stop and remove the wand.

After having it done, I can see why they get you to sign the consent form, and I no longer think it's overkill.  I didn't have much problem with the test, but I can see how it could trigger someone who has been sexually assaulted, or even a woman who doesn't have much experience with sex, or with these sorts of medical exams (think young women who might be seeking an abortion).

I can't imagine being a 17 year-old pregnant young woman, being forced to undergo this test.  I had my first pap test at 18, and even though there was a nurse in the room holding my hand, I still cried because it was so embarrassing and invasive and it just freaked me out.

But doing this to women against their will?  Medical rape.